f. procession, march, passage, procedure, progress, movement (exempli gratia, 'for example'astra-g-,the going or flying of missile weapons ; parāṃ gatiṃ-gam-,"to go the last way", to die; daiva-g-,the course of fate ; kāvyasya g-,the progress or course of a poem )
f. (in gram.) a term for prepositions and some other adverbial prefixes (such as alam-etc.) when immediately connected with the tenses of a verb or with verbal derivatives (seekarmapravacanīya-)
गतिः f. [गम्-भावे क्तिन्] 1 Motion, going, moving, gait; गतिर्विगलिता Pt.4.78; अभिन्नगतयः Ś.1.14; (न) भिन्दन्ति मन्दां गतिमश्वमुख्यः Ku.1.11 do not mend their slow gait (do not mend their pace); so गगनगतिः Pt.1; लघुगतिः Me.16; U.6.23. -2 Access, entrance; मणौ वज्रसमुत्कीर्णे सूत्रस्येवा- स्ति मे गतिः R.1.4. -3 Scope, room; अस्त्रगतिः Ku.3.19; मनोरथानामगतिर्न विद्यते Ku.5.64; नास्त्यगतिर्मनोरथानाम् V.2. -4 Turn, course; दैवगतिर्हि चित्रा, Mu.7.16. -5 Going to, reaching, obtaining; वैकुण्ठीया गतिः Pt.1 obtaining Heaven. -6 Fate, issue; भर्तुर्गतिर्गन्तव्या Dk.13. -7 State, condition; दानं भोगो नाशस्तिस्रो गतयो भवन्ति वित्तस्य Bh.2.43; Pt.1.16. -8 Position, station, situation, mode of existence; परार्ध्यगतेः पितुः R.8.27; कुसुमस्तबकस्येव द्वे गती स्तो मनस्विनाम् Bh.2.14; Pt.1.41,42. -9 A means, expedient, course, alternative; अनुपेक्षणे द्वयी गतिः Mu.3; का गतिः what help is there, can't help (often used in dramas) Pt.1.319; अन्या गतिर्नास्ति K.158; cf. also अगतिका हि एषा गतिः यत् कृत्स्नसंयोगे सति विकल्पसमुच्चयौ स्याताम् ŚB. on MS.1.5.47. -1 Recourse, shelter, refuge, asylum, resort; विद्यमानां गतिर्येषाम् Pt.1.32,322; आसयत् सलिले पृथ्वीं यः स मे श्रीहरिर्गतिः Sk. -11 Source, origin, acquisition; क्रियाविशेषबहुलां भोगैश्वर्यगतिं प्रति Bg.2.43; Ms.1.5. -12 a way, path. -13 A march, procession. -14 An event, issue, result. -15 The course of events, fate, fortune. -16 Course of asterisms. -17 The diurnal motion of a planet in its orbit. -18 A running wound or sore, fistula. -19 Knowing; अपेन पूर्वं न मयेति का गतिः Ki.14.15; knowledge, wisdom. -2 Transmigration, metempsychosis; Ms.6.73;12.3,23,4-45; त्यज बुद्धिमिमां गतिप्रवृत्ताम् Bu. Ch.5.36; Bhāg.1.17.1. -21 A stage or period of life, (as शैशव, यौवन, वार्धक). -22 (In gram.) A term for preposition and some other adverbial prefixes (such as अलम्, तिरस् &c.) when immediately connected with the tenses of a verb or verbal derivatives. -23 Position of a child at birth. -Comp. -अनुसरः following the course of another. -ऊन a. impassable, desert. -भङ्गः stoppage. -हीन a. without refuge, helpless, forlorn.
अङ्गतिः [अङ्गति यात्यनेन, अङ्ग् करणे अति] 1 A conveyance, vehicle (f. also ). -2 [अङ्ग्यते गम्यते सेवादिना कर्मणि अति] Fire. -3 Brahmā. -4 [कर्तरि अति] A Brāhmaṇa who maintains the sacred fire.
प्रत्युद्गतिः f., प्रत्युद्गमः, प्रत्युद्गमनम् Going out or rising from one's seat to meet or greet a guest.
प्रत्युद्गमनीयम् pratyudgamanīyam
प्रत्युद्गमनीयम् A clean pair of garments; गृहीतप्रत्युद्गम- नीयवस्त्रा Ku.7.11. (v. l. for ˚पत्युद्गमनीयवस्त्रा); see उद्गमनीय.
संगतिः f. 1 Union, meeting, conjunction; भवत्याः संगत्याः फलमिति च कल्याणि कलये Ā. L.17. -2 Company, society, association, intercourse; मनो हि जन्मान्तरसंगतिज्ञम् R.7.15; क्षणमिह सज्जनसंगतिरेका भवति भवार्णवतरणे नौका Moha M.6. -3 Sexual union. -4 Visiting, frequenting. -5 Fitness, appropriateness, applicability, consistent relation. -6 Accident, chance, accidental occurrence, -7 Knowledge. -8 Questioning for further knowledge. -9 (In पूर्वमीमांसा) One of the five members of an अधिकरण.
सांगतिक a. (-की f.) Relating to union or society, associating. -कः 1 A visitor, guest, new-comer; नैकग्रामीण- मतिथि विप्रं साङ्गतिकं तथा Ms.3.13. -2 One who comes to transact business.
gā go, III. P. jígāti. abhí- approach, vii. 71, 4. á̄- come: rt. ao. agāt, i. 35, 8. pári- go by (acc.): root ao. inj. gāt, ii. 33, 14. [231] prá- go forward, ipv. jigāta, i. 85, 6; enter, root ao., viii. 48, 2.
m. (black-pathed), fire; -katurdasî, f. 14th day of the dark half= new moon; -ganma½ashtamî, f. a certain eighth day which is Krishna's birthday; -tâ, f., -tva, n. blackness; -nayana, -netra, a. black-eyed; -paksha, m. dark fortnight (full moon to new moon); -bhûma, m. black soil; -bhogin, m. kind of black snake; -mukha, a. (î) black-mouthed; -mriga, m. black ante lope; -yagurveda, m. Black Yagur-veda.
m. dweller in the sky; -kara, m. sky-goer, bird; -kârin, a. coming from the sky (voice); -tala, n. vault of heaven; -nagara, n. mirage; -pratishtha, a. being in the air; -lih, a. reaching to the sky; -vihârin, a. moving in the sky; -sad, m. denizen of the sky; -sindhu, f. celestial Ganges; -sparsana, m. N. of one of the Ma ruts; -spris, a. touching=dwelling in, the sky; reaching to the sky.
a. swift-paced, hasty; -tara-gati, a. moving faster; -tva, n. melt ing, emotion; -pada, n. ad. with swift steps, hastily; n. a metre (swift-paced); -vilamb ita, n. a metre (fast and slow).
f. meeting with (g., --°ree;); resorting to a place, frequenting (lc.); asso ciation, intercourse (also sexual), with (in. ±saha, samam, g., lc., --°ree;); alliance (rare); accidental occurrence (rare); fitness, appro priateness; connexion, relation, to (in., --°ree;): in. by chance, haply.
f. good position, happy lot; way of good men; -guna, m. good quality, virtue; a. virtuous; -guru, m. good teacher; -dharma, m. good law, true justice; Bud dhist and Jain designation of their doctrine: -pundarîka, n. Lotus of the Good Law, T. of a Buddhist work; -bhâva, m. real being, existence; real state of things, truth; true purport (of a work); uprightness; good na ture, kindness, affection, for (prati); faith fulness: -srî, f. N. of a goddess; -bhûta, pp. true; -bhritya, m. good servant.
A word occurring several times in the Rigveda, denotes a well, artificially made (khan * to dig ’) in contrast with a spring (iitsa), though the latter expression is also applied to an artificial well. Such wells were covered by the makers, and are described as unfailing (a-ksita) and full of water. The water was raised by a wheel (cahra) of stone, to which was fastened a strap (varatrā), with a pail (kośa) attached to it. When raised it was poured (siñc) into buckets (āhāva) of wood. Sometimes those wells appear to have been used for irrigation purposes, the water being led off into broad channels (sārmī susirā).
Is a word of somewhat doubtful sense and interpretation. It is found only in the Samhitās, and especially in the Rigveda. According to Roth and Ludwig the sense is ‘retainer,’ and Zimmer thinks that it includes not only dependants and servants, but also the royal family and the youthful cadets of the chief families. In the opinion of Pischel and Geldner® it denotes ‘elephant.’ This view is supported by the authority of the commentators Sāyana and Mahīdhara; the Nirukta, too, gives ‘elephant’ as one of the senses of the word. Megasthenes and Nearchos tell us that elephants were a royal prerogative, and the derivative word Ibhya may thus be naturally explained as denoting merely ‘ rich ’ (lit., ‘ possessor of elephants ’).
Denotes both in the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda a ‘dependent,’ just as later in the Epic the subordination of the Vaiśya to the two superior castes is expressed by the verb upa-sthā, ‘stand under,’ support.’ The word also appears, with the same sense, in the form of Sti, but only in the Rigveda. The exact nature of the dependence connoted by the term is quite uncertain. Zimmer conjectures that the *dependents ’ were the members of defeated Aryan tribes who became clients of the king, as among the Greeks, Romans, and Germans, the term possibly including persons who had lost their freedom through dicing. The evidence of the Athar¬vaveda shows that among the Upastis were included the chariot-makers (ratha-kāra), the smiths (taksan), and the charioteers (sūta), and troop-leaders (grāma-nī), while the Rigveda passages negative the possibility of the subjects ’ (s&‘) being the whole people. It is therefore fair to assume that they were the clients proper of the king, not servile, but attached in a special relation to him as opposed to the ordinary population. They may well have included among them not only the classes suggested by Zimmer, but also higher elements, such as refugees from other clans, as well as ambitious men who sought advancement in the royal service. Indeed, the Sūta and the Grāmanī were, as such, officers of the king’s house¬holdkingmakers, not themselves kings, as they are described in the Atharvaveda. The use of the word in the Taittirīya Samhitā, the Taittirīya Brāhmana, and the Kāthaka, is purely metaphorical, as well as in the one passage of the Rigveda in which it occurs. In the Paippalāda recension of the Atharvaveda,Vaiśya, Sūdra, and Arya are referred to as Upastis, perhaps in the general sense of ‘subject.’
Is with Ksetra the regular expression, from the Rigveda onwards, denoting a piece of ‘ploughland’ (άρουρα). Fertile (apnasvatī) fields are spoken of as well as waste fields (ārtanā). Intensive cultivation by means of irrigation is clearly referred to both in the Rigveda and in the Atharvaveda, while allusion is also made to the use of manure. The fields (iksetra) were carefully measured according to the Rigveda. This fact points clearly to individual ownership in land for the plough, a conclusion supported by the reference of Apālā, in a hymn of the Rigveda, to her father's field (urvarā), which is put on the same level as his head of hair as a personal possession. Consistent with this are the epithets ‘winning fields ’ (urvarā-sā, urvarā-jit, ksetra-sā), while ‘ lord of fields ’ used of a god is presumably a transfer of a human epithet (urvarā-pati). Moreover, fields are spoken of in the same connexion as children, and the conquest of fields (ksetrāni sam-ji) is often referred to in the Samhitās. Very probably, as suggested by Pischel, the ploughland was bounded by grass land (perhaps denoted by Khila, Khilya) which in all likelihood would be joint property on the analogy of property elsewhere. There is no trace in Vedic literature of communal property in the sense of ownership by a community of any sort, nor is there mention of communal cultivation. Individual property in land seems also presumed later on. In the Chāndogya Upanisad the things given as examples of wealth include fields and houses («ūyatanāni). The Greek evidence also points to individual ownership. The precise nature of the ownership is of course not determined by the expression ‘ individual ownership.’ The legal relationship of the head of a family and its members is nowhere explained, and can only be conjectured (see Pitr). Very often a family may have lived together with undivided shares in the land. The rules about the inheritance of landed property do not occur before the Sūtras. In the Satapatha Brāhmana the giving of land as a fee to priests is mentioned, but with reproof: land was no doubt even then a very special kind of property, not lightly to be given away or parted with. On the relation of the owners of land to the king and others see Grāma; on its cultivation see Krsi.
‘debt,’ is repeatedly mentioned from the Rigveda onwards, having apparently been a normal condition among the Vedic Indians. Reference is often made to debts contracted at dicing. To pay off a debt was called rnam sam-nī, Allusion is made to debt contracted without intention of payment. The result of non-payment of a debt might be very serious: the dicer might fall into slavery. Debtors, like other male¬factors, such as thieves, were frequently bound by their creditors to posts (dru-pada),β presumably as a means of putting pressure on them or their friends to pay up the debt. The amount of interest payable is impossible to make out. In one passage of the Rigveda and Atharvaveda an eighth (sapha) and a sixteenth (kalā) are mentioned as paid, but it is quite uncertain whether interest or an instalment of the principal is meant. Presumably the interest would be paid in kind. How far a debt was a heritable interest or obligation does not appear. The Kauśika Sūtra regards three hymns of the Atharvaveda9 as applicable to the occasion of the payment of a debt after the creditor’s decease. For the payment of a debt by a relation of the debtor the evidence is still less clear. Zimmer11 thinks that payments of debt were made in the presence of witnesses who could be appealed to in case of dispute. This conclusion is, however, very uncertain, resting solely on a vague verse in the Atharvaveda.
The name Kāśi denotes (in the plural1) the people of Kāśi (Benares), and Kāśya, the king of Kāśi. The Satapatha Brāhmana tells of Dhrtarāstra, king of Kāśi, who was defeated by Satānīka Sātrājita, with the result that the Kāśis, down to the time of the Brāhmana, gave up the kindling of the sacred fire. Sātrājita was a Bharata. We hear also of Ajātaśatru as a king of Kāśi; and no doubt Bhadrasena Ajātaśatrava, a contemporary of Uddālaka, was also a king of Kāśi. The Kāśis and Videhas were closely connected, as was natural in view of their geographical position. The compound name Kāśi-Videha occurs in the Kausītaki Upanisad; in the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad Gārgī describes Ajātaśatru as either a Kāśi or a Videha king. The Sāñkhāyana Srauta Sūtra mentions one Purohita as acting for the kings of Kāśi, Kosala, and Videha; and the Baudhāyana śrauta Sūtra mentions Kāśi and Videha in close proximity. Weber,8 indeed, throws out the suggestion that the Kāśis and the Videhas together con¬stitute the Uśīnaras, whose name is very rare in Vedic literature. As Kosala and Videha were in close connexion, Kāśi and Kosala are found combined in the compound name Kāśi- Kauśalyas of the Gopatha Brāhmana. Though Kāśi is a late word, it is quite possible that the town is older, as the river Varanāvatī referred to in the Athar¬vaveda may be connected with the later Vārānasī (Benares).It is significant that while the Kāśis, Kosalas, and Videhas were united, any relations which the Kuru-Pañcala peoples may have had with them were hostile. It is a fair conclusion that between these two great groups of peoples there did exist some political conflict as well as probably a difference of culture in some degree. The śatapatha Brāhmana,11 in the story of the advance of Aryan civilization over Kosala and Videha, preserves a clear tradition of this time, and a piece of evidence that in the Kuru-Pañcāla country lay the real centre of the Brāhmana culture (see also Kuru-Pañcāla). That the Kosala-Videhas were originally settlers of older date than the Kuru-Pañcālas is reasonably obvious from their geographical position, but the true Brāhmana culture appears to have been brought to them from the Kuru-Pañcala country. It is very probable that the East was less Aryan than the West, and that it was less completely reduced under Brahmin spiritual supremacy, as the movement of Buddhism was Eastern, and the Buddhist texts reveal a position in which the Ksatriyas rank above Brāhmanas. With this agrees the fact that the later Vedic texts display towards the people of Magadha a marked antipathy, which may be reasonably explained by that people’s lack of orthodoxy, and which may perhaps be traced as far back as the Vājasaneyi Samhitā. It is, of course, possible that the Kosala-Videhas and Kāśis actually were merely offshoots of the tribes later known as the Kuru-Pañcālas, and that they by reason of distance and less complete subjugation of the aborigines lost their Brahminical culture. This hypothesis, however, appears less likely, though it might be supported by a literal inter-pretation of the legend of the Aryan migration in the śatapatha Brāhmana.
‘ploughing.’ The cultivation of the soil was no doubt known to the Indians before they separated from the Iranians, as is indicated by the identity of the expressions yavam krs and sasya in the Rigveda with yao karesh and hahya in the Avesta, referring to the ploughing in of the seed and to the grain which resulted. But it is not without significance that the expressions for ploughing occur mainly in the first and tenth books of the Rigveda, and only rarely in the so-called ‘ family ’ books (ii.-vii.). In the Atharvaveda Prthī Vainya is credited with the origination of ploughing, and even in the Rigveda the Aśvins are spoken of as concerned with the sowing of grain by means of the plough. In the later Samhitās and the Brāhmanas ploughing is repeatedly referred to. Even in the Rigveda there is clear proof of the importance attached to agriculture. In the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana the Vrātyas, Hindus without the pale of Brahminism, are de¬scribed as not cultivating the soil.The plough land was called Urvarā or Ksetra; manure (Sakan, Karīsa) was used, and irrigation was practised (Khani- tra). The plough (Lāñgala, Sira) was drawn by oxen, teams of six, eight, or even twelve being employed. The operations of agriculture are neatly summed up in the śatapatha Brāhmana as ‘ ploughing, sowing, reaping, and threshing ’ (
‘produced by digging,’ as an epithet of āpafy, ‘ waters,’ clearly refers to artificial water channels used for irrigation, as practised in the times of the Rigveda and the Atharvaveda.
The primitive sense of this word, which occurs frequently from the Rigveda onwards, appears to have been village.’ The Vedic Indians must have dwelt in villages which were scattered over the country, some close together, some far apart, and were connected by roads.The village is regularly contrasted with the forest (
Occurs in the Rigveda only in the sense of ‘reward’ of exertion (śrama), but later it means ‘inheritance’—that is, a father’s property which is to be divided among his sons either during his lifetime or after his death. The passages all negative the idea that the property 0/ the family was legally family property: it is clear that it was the property of the head of the house, usually the father, and that the other members of the family only had moral claims upon it which the father could ignore, though he might be coerced by his sons if they were physically stronger. Thus Manu is said in the Taittirīya Samhitā to have divided his property among his sons. He omitted Nābhānedistha, whom he afterwards taught how to appease the Añgirases, and to procure cows. This is a significant indication that the property he divided was movable property, rather than land (Urvarā). In the Aitareya Brāhmana the division is said to have been made during Manu’s lifetime by his sons, who left only their aged father to Nābhānedistha. According to the Jaiminīya Brāhmana, again, four sons divided the inheritance while their old father, Abhipratārin, was still alive. It is, of course, possible to regard Dāya as denoting the heritable property of the family, but the developed patria potestas of the father, which was early very marked, as shown by the legend of Sunahśepa, is inconsistent with the view that the sons were legally owners with their father, unless and until they actually insisted on a division of the property. Probably— there is no evidence of any decisive character—land was not divided at first, but no doubt its disposal began to follow the analogy of cattle and other movable property as soon as the available supply of arable land became limited. As for the method of division, it is clear from the Taittirīya Samhitā that the elder son was usually preferred; perhaps this was always the case after death. During the father’s life¬time another might be preferred, as appears from a passage of the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Women were excluded from partition or inheritance, according to the śatapatha Brāhmana and the Nirukta. They were, no doubt, supported by their brothers; but if they had none they might be reduced to prostitution. Detailed rules of inheritance appear in the Sūtras.
Is the regular word in the Rigveda and later for a 4 boat ’ or 4 ship.’ In the great majority of cases the ship was merely a boat for crossing rivers, though no doubt a large boat was needed for crossing many of the broad rivers of the Panjab as well as the Yamunā and Gañgā. Often no doubt the Nau was a mere dug-out canoe (
(‘Descendant of Kusuru- binda’) is mentioned in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa as a pupil and contemporary of Uddālaka. In the Taittirīya Sarphitā, on the other hand, Kusurubinda is called Auddālaki, ‘descendant of Uddālaka,’ a fact which seems to indicate that little value is to be attached to these patronymics and allegations of contemporaneousness.
Occurs several times in the Rigveda and often later in the sense of tribute to a king or offering to a god. Zimmer thinks that the offerings were in both cases voluntary. He compares the notices of the Germans in Tacitus, where the kings of the tribes are said to receive gifts in kind as presents, but not a regular tribute. There seems to be no ground whatever for this view. No doubt in origin the prerogatives of monarchy were due to voluntary action on the part of the tribesmen, but that the Vedic peoples, who were essentially a body of conquering invaders, were in this state is most improbable, and the attitude of the Vedic Indian to his gods was at least as compatible with tribute as with voluntary gifts. Zimmer admits that in the case of hostile tribes tribute must be meant even in the Rigveda. See also Rājan.
Descendant of a Brahman' (i.e., of a priest), is found only a few times in the Rigveda, and mostly in its latest parts. In the Atharvaveda and later it is a very common word denoting ‘priest,’ and it appears in the quadruple division of the castes in the Purusa-sūkta (‘hymn of man’) of the Rigveda. It seems certain that in the Rigveda this Brāhmaṇa, or Brahmin, is already a separate caste, differing from the warrior and agricultural castes. The texts regularly claim for them a superiority to the Kṣatriya caste, and the Brahmin is able by his spells or manipulation of the rite to embroil the people and the warriors or the different sections of the warriors. If it is necessary to. recognize, as is sometimes done, that the Brahmin does pay homage to the king at the Rājasūya, nevertheless the unusual fact is carefully explained away so as to leave the priority of the Brahmin unaffected. But it is expressly recognized that the union of the Ksatriya and the Brāhmaṇa is essential for complete prosperity. It is admitted that the king or the nobles might at times oppress the Brahmins, but it is indicated that ruin is then certain swiftly to follow. The Brahmins are gods on earth, like the gods in heaven, but this claim is hardly found in the Rigveda. In the Aitareya Brāhmana the Brahmin is said to be the ‘ recipient of gifts * (ādāyt) and the * drinker of the offering ’ (āpāyT). The other two epithets applied, āvasāyī and yathā- kāma-prayāpya, are more obscure; the former denotes either ‘ dwelling everywhere ’ or ‘ seeking food ’; the latter is usually taken as * moving at pleasure,’ but it must rather allude to the power of the king to assign a place of residence to the Brahmin. In the śatapatha Brāhmana the prerogatives of the Brah¬min are summed up as Arcā, ‘honour’; Dāna, ‘gifts’; Aj'yeyatā,‘ freedom from oppression ’; and Avadhyatā, ‘ freedom from being killed.’ On the other hand, his duties are summed up as Brāhmanya, ‘ purity of descent’; Pratirūpa-caryā, ‘devotion of the duties of his caste’; and Loka-pakti, ‘the perfecting of people ’ (by teaching). ī. Respect paid to Brahmins. The texts are full of references to the civilities to be paid to the Brahmin. He is styled bhagavant, and is provided with good food and entertain¬ment wherever he goes. Indeed, his sanctity exempts him from any close inquiry into his real claim to Brahminhood according to the Pañcavimśa Brāhmana. Gifts to Brahmins. The Dānastuti (‘Praise of gifts’) is a recognized feature of the Rigveda, and the greed of the poets for Dakṣiṇās, or sacrificial fees, is notorious. Vedic texts themselves recognize that the literature thence resulting (Nārā- śamsī) was often false to please the donors. It was, however, a rule that Brahmins should not accept what had been refused by others; this indicates a keen sense of the danger of cheapening their wares. So exclusively theirs was the right to receive gifts that the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa has to explain how Taranta and Purumīlha became able to accept gifts by composing a Rigvedic hymn. The exaggerations in the celebration of the gifts bestowed on the priests has the curious result of giving us a series of numerals of some interest (Daśan). In some passages certain gifts those of a horse or sheep are forbidden, but this rule was not, it is clear, generally observed. Immunities of Brahmins. The Brahmin claimed to be exempt from the ordinary exercise of the royal power. When a king gives all his land and what is on it to the priests, the gift does not cover the property of the Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. The king censures all, but not the Brahmin, nor can he safely oppress any Brahmin other than an ignorant priest. An arbitrator (or a witness) must decide (or speak) for a Brahmin against a non-Brahmin in a legal dispute. The Brahmin’s proper food is the Soma, not Surā or Parisrut, and he is forbidden to eat certain forms of flesh. On the other hand, he alone is allowed to eat the remains of the sacrifice, for no one else is sufficiently holy to consume food which the gods have eaten. Moreover, though he cannot be a physician, he helps the physician by being beside him while he exercises his art. His wife and his cow are both sacred. 4.Legal Position of. Brahmins.—The Taittirīya Samhitā lays down a penalty of a hundred (the unit meant is unknown) for an insult to a Brahmin, and of a thousand for a blow ; but if his blood is drawn, the penalty is a spiritual one. The only real murder is the slaying of a Brahmin according to the śatapatha Brāhmana. The crime of slaying a Brahmin ranks above the sin of killing any other man, but below that of killing an embryo (bhrūna) in the Yajurveda ; the crime of slaying an embryo whose sex is uncertain is on a level with that of slaying a Brahmin. The murder of a Brahmin can be expiated only by the horse sacrifice, or by a lesser rite in the late Taittirīya Araṇyaka.The ritual slaying of a Brahmin is allowed in the later ceremonial, and hinted at in the curious legend of śunahśepa ; and a Purohita might be punished with death for treachery to his master. 5.Purity of Birth. The importance of pure descent is seeη in the stress laid on being a descendant of a Rṣi (ārseya). But, on the other hand, there are clear traces of another doctrine, which requires learning, and not physical descent, as the true criterion of Rsihood. In agreement with this is the fact that Satyakāma Jābāla was received as a pupil, though his parentage was unknown, his mother being a slave girl who had been connected with several men, and that in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa the ceremony on acceptance as a pupil required merely the name of the pupil. So Kavasa is taunted in the Rigveda Brāhmaṇas as being the son of a female slave (Dāsī), and Vatsa cleared himself of a similar imputation by a fire ordeal. Moreover, a very simple rite was adequate to remove doubts as to origin. In these circumstances it is doubtful whether much value attaches to the Pravara lists in which the ancestors of the priest were invoked at the beginning of the sacrifice by the Hotṛ and the Adhvaryu priests.66 Still, in many parts of the ritual the knowledge of two or more genera¬tions was needed, and in one ceremony ten ancestors who have drunk the Soma are required, but a literal performance of the rite is excused. Moreover, there are clear traces of ritual variations in schools, like those of the Vasisthas and the Viśvāmitras. 6. The Conduct of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required to maintain a fair standard of excellence. He was to be kind to all and gentle, offering sacrifice and receiving gifts. Especial stress was laid on purity of speech ; thus Viśvan- tara’s excuse for excluding the Syaparnas from his retinue was their impure (apūtā) speech. Theirs was the craving for knowledge and the life of begging. False Brahmins are those who do not fulfil their duties (cf, Brahmabandhu). But the penances for breach of duty are, in the Sūtras, of a very light and unimportant character. 7. Brahminical Studies. The aim of the priest is to obtain pre-eminence in sacred knowledge (brahma-varcasam), as is stated in numerous passages of Vedic literature. Such distinction is not indeed confined to the Brahmin: the king has it also, but it is not really in a special manner appropriate to the Kṣatriya. Many ritual acts are specified as leading to Brahmavarcasa, but more stress is laid on the study of the sacred texts : the importance of such study is repeatedly insisted upon. The technical name for study is Svādhyāya : the śatapatha Brāhmana is eloquent upon its advantages, and it is asserted that the joy of the learned śrotriya, or ‘student,’ is equal to the highest joy possible. Nāka Maudgfalya held that study and the teaching of others were the true penance (tapas).7δ The object was the ‘ threefold knowledge’ (trayī vidyā), that of the Rc, Yajus, and Sāman, a student of all three Vedas being called tri-śukriya or tn-sukra, ‘thrice pure.’ Other objects of study are enumerated in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, in the Taittirīya Aranyaka, the Chāndogya Upanisad, etc. (See Itihāsa, Purāna; Gāthā, Nārāśamsī; Brahmodya; Anuśās- ana, Anuvyākhyāna, Anvākhyāna, Kalpa, Brāhmaria; Vidyā, Ksatravidyā, Devajanavidyā, Nakçatravidyā, Bhūta- vidyā, Sarpavidyā; Atharvāñgirasah, Daiva, Nidhi, Pitrya, Rāśi; Sūtra, etc.) Directions as to the exact place and time of study are given in the Taittirīya Araṇyaka and in the Sūtras. If study is carried on in the village, it is to be done silently (manasā); if outside, aloud (vācā).
Learning is expected even from persons not normally competent as teachers, such as the Carakas, who are recognized in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa as possible sources of information. Here, too, may be mentioned the cases of Brahmins learning from princes, though their absolute value is doubtful, for the priests would naturally represent their patrons as interested in their sacred science: it is thus not necessary to see in these notices any real and independent study on the part of the Kṣatriyas. Yājñavalkya learnt from Janaka, Uddālaka Aruni and two other Brahmins from Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, Drptabālāki Gārgya from Ajātaśatru, and five Brahmins under the lead of Aruṇa from Aśvapati Kaikeya. A few notices show the real educators of thought: wandering scholars went through the country and engaged in disputes and discussions in which a prize was staked by the disputants. Moreover, kings like Janaka offered rewards to the most learned of the Brahmins; Ajātaśatru was jealous of his renown, and imitated his generosity. Again, learned women are several times mentioned in the Brāhmaṇas. A special form of disputation was the Brahmodya, for which there was a regular place at the Aśvamedha (‘ horse sacrifice ’) and at the Daśarātra (‘ ten-day festival,). The reward of learning was the gaining of the title of Kavi or Vipra, ‘ sage.’ 8. The Functions of the Brahmin. The Brahmin was required not merely to practise individual culture, but also to give others the advantage of his skill, either as a teacher or as a sacrificial priest, or as a Purohita. As a teacher the Brahmin has, of course, the special duty of instructing his own son in both study and sacrificial ritual. The texts give examples of this, such as Áruṇi and Svetaketu, or mythically Varuṇa and Bhṛgu. This fact also appears from some of the names in the Vamśa Brāhmana" of the Sāmaveda and the Vamśa (list of teachers) of the śāñkhāyana Áraṇyaka. On the other hand, these Vamśas and the Vamśas of the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa show that a father often preferred to let his son study under a famous teacher. The relation of pupil and teacher is described under Brahmacarya. A teacher might take several pupils, and he was bound to teach them with all his heart and soul. He was bound to reveal everything to his pupil, at any rate to one who was staying with him for a year (saηivatsara-vāsin), an expression which shows, as was natural, that a pupil might easily change teachers. But, nevertheless, certain cases of learning kept secret and only revealed to special persons are enumerated. The exact times and modes of teaching are elaborately laid down in the Sūtras, but not in the earlier texts. As priest the Brahmin operated in all the greater sacrifices; the simple domestic {grhya) rites could normally be performed without his help, but not the more important rites {śrauta). The number varied : the ritual literature requires sixteen priests to be employed at the greatest sacrifices (see Rtvij), but other rites could be accomplished with four, five, six, seven, or ten priests. Again, the Kauçītakins had a seventeenth priest beside the usual sixteen, the Sadasya, so called because he watched the performance from the Sadas, seat.’ In one rite, the Sattra (‘sacrificial session') of the serpents, the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa, adds three more to the sixteen, a second Unnetṛ, an Abhigara, and an Apagara. The later ritual places the Brahman at the head of all the priests, but this is probably not the early view (see Brahman). The sacrifice ensured, if properly performed, primarily the advantages of the sacrificer (yajamāna), but the priest shared in the profit, besides securing the Daksiṇās. Disputes between sacrificers and the priests were not rare, as in the case of Viśvantara and the śyāparṇas, or Janamejaya and the Asitamrgras and the Aiçāvīras are referred to as undesirable priests. Moreover, Viśvāmitra once held the post of Purohita to Sudās, but gave place to Vasiṣtha. The position of Purohita differed considerably from that of the ordinary priest, for the Purohita not merely might officiate at the sacrifice, but was the officiator in all the private sacrifices of his king. Hence he could, and undoubtedly sometimes did, obtain great influence over his master in matters of secular importance; and the power of the priesthood in political as opposed to domestic and religious matters, no doubt rested on the Purohita. There is no recognition in Vedic literature of the rule later prevailing by which, after spending part of his life as a Brahma- cārin, and part as a householder, the Brahmin became an ascetic (later divided into the two stages of Vānaprastha, ‘forest-dweller,’ and Samnyāsin, ‘mystic ’). Yājñavalkya's case shows that study of the Absolute might empty life of all its content for the sage, and drive him to abandon wife and family. In Buddhist times the same phenomenon is seen applying to other than Brahmins. The Buddhist texts are here confirmed in some degree by the Greek authorities. The practice bears a certain resemblance to the habit of kings, in the Epic tradition,of retiring to the forest when active life is over. From the Greek authorities it also appears what is certainly the case in the Buddhist literature that Brahmins practised the most diverse occupations. It is difficult to say how far this was true for the Vedic period. The analogy of the Druids in some respects very close suggests that the Brahmins may have been mainly confined to their professional tasks, including all the learned professions such as astronomy and so forth. This is not contradicted by any Vedic evidence ; for instance, the poet of a hymn of the Rigveda says he is a poet, his father a physician (Bhiṣaj), and his mother a grinder of corn (Upala-prakṣiṇī). This would seem to show that a Brahmin could be a doctor, while his wife would perform the ordinary household duties. So a Purohita could perhaps take the field to assist the king by prayer, as Viśvāmitra, and later on Vasiṣtha do, but this does not show that priests normally fought. Nor do they seem normally to have been agriculturists or merchants. On the other hand, they kept cattle: a Brahmacarin’s duty was to watch his master’s cattle.129 It is therefore needless to suppose that they could not, and did not, on occasion turn to agricultural or mercan¬tile pursuits, as they certainly did later. But it must be remembered that in all probability there was more purity of blood, and less pressure of life, among the Brahmins of the Vedic age than later in Buddhist times, when the Vedic sacrificial apparatus was falling into grave disrepute. It is clear that the Brahmins, whatever their defects, represented the intellectual side of Vedic life, and that the Kṣatriyas, if they played a part in that life, did so only in a secondary degree, and to a minor extent. It is natural to suppose that the Brahmins also composed ballads, the precursors of the epic; for though none such have survived, a few stanzas of this character, celebrating the generosity of patrons, have been preserved by being embedded in priestly compositions. A legend in the śatapatha Brāhmaṇa shows clearly that the Brahmins regarded civilization as being spread by them only: Kosala and Videha, no doubt settled by Aryan tribes, are only rendered civilized and habitable by the influence of pious Brahmins. We need not doubt that the non-Brahminical tribes (see Vrātya) had attained intellectual as well as material civilization, but it is reasonable to assume that their civilization was inferior to that of the Brahmins, for the history of Hinduism is the conquest by the Brahmins not by arms, but by mind of the tribes Aryan and non-Aryan originally beyond the pale.
King,' is a term repeatedly occuring in the rigveda and the later literature. It is quite clear that the normal, though not universal form of government, in early India was that by kings, as might be expected in view of the fact that the Āryan Indian were invaders in a hostile territory : a situation which, as in the case of Ārayan invaders of Greece and German invaders of England, resulted almost necessarily in strengthening the monarchic element of the constitution. The mere patriarchal organization of society is not sufficient, as Zimmer assumes, to explain the Vedic kingship. Tenure of Monarchy.—Zimmer is of opinion that while the Vedic monarchy was sometimes hereditary, as is indeed shown by several cases where the descent can be traced,® yet in others the monarchy was elective, though it is not clear whether the selection by the people was between the members of the royal family only or extended to members of all the noble clans. It must, however, be admitted that the evidence for the elective monarchy is not strong. As Geldner argues, all the passages cited can be regarded not as choice by the cantons (Viś), but as acceptance by the subjects (viś): this seems the more prob¬able sense. Of course this is no proof that the monarchy was not sometimes elective: the practice of selecting one member of the family to the exclusion of another less well qualified is exemplified by the legend in Yāska of the Kuru brothers, Devāpi and śantanu, the value of which, as evidence of contemporary views, is not seriously affected by the legend itself being of dubious character and validity. Royal power was clearly insecure: there are several references to kings being expelled from their realms, and their efforts to recover their sovereignty, and the Atharvaveda contains spells in the interest of royalty. The King in War.—Naturally the Vedic texts, after the Rigveda, contain few notices of the warlike adventures that no doubt formed a very considerable proportion of the royal functions. But the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa contains the statement that the Kuru-Pañcāla kings, who, like the Brahmins of those tribes, stand as representatives of good form, used to make their raids in the dewy season. The word Udāja, too, with its variant Nirāja, records that kings took a share of the booty of war. The Rigveda13 has many references to Vedic wars: it is clear that the Kṣatriyas were at least as intent on fulfilling their duty of war as the Brahmins on sacrificing and their other functions. Moreover, beside offensive war, defence was a chief duty of the king: he is emphatically the ‘ protector of the tribe* (gopā janasya), or, as is said in the Rājasūya (‘royal consecration’), ‘protector of the Brahmin.’14 His Purohita was expected to use his spells and charms to secure the success of his king’s arms. The king no doubt fought in person: so Pratardana met death in war according to the Kausītaki Upanisad;16 and in the Rājasūya the king is invoked as ‘sacker of cities’ (purāψ bhettā). The King in Peace.—In return for his warlike services the king received the obedience—sometimes forced—of the people, and in particular their contributions for the maintenance of royalty. The king is regularly regarded as ‘ devouring the people,’ but this phrase must not be explained as meaning that he necessarily oppressed them. It obviously has its origin in a custom by which the king and his retinue were fed by the people’s contributions, a plan with many parallels. It is also probable that the king could assign the royal right of mainten¬ance to a Ksatriya, thus developing a nobility supported by the people. Taxation would not normally fall on Kṣatriya or Brahmin; the texts contain emphatic assertions of the exemption of the goods of the latter from the royal bounty. In the people, however, lay the strength of the king. See also Bali. In return the king performed the duties of judge. Himself immune from punishment (a-daiidya), he wields the rod of punishment (Daṇda). It is probable that criminal justice remained largely in his actual administration, for the Sūtras preserve clear traces of the personal exercise of royal criminal jurisdiction. Possibly the jurisdiction could be exercised by a royal officer, or even by a delegate, for a Rājanya is mentioned as an overseer (adhyaksa) of the punishment of a śūdra in the Kāthaka Samhitā. In civil justice it may be that the king played a much less prominent part, save as a court of final appeal, but evidence is lacking on this head. The Madhyamaśi of the Rigveda was probably not a royal, but a private judge or arbitrator. A wide criminal jurisdiction is, however, to some extent supported by the frequent mention of Varuna’s spies, for Varuṇa is the divine counterpart of the human king. Possibly such spies could be used in' war also. There is no reference in early Vedic literature to the exercise of legislative activity by the king, though later it is an essential part of his duties. Nor can we say exactly what executive functions devolved on the king. In all his acts the king was regularly advised by his Purohita ; he also had the advantage of the advice of the royal ministers and attendants (see Ratnin). The local administration was entrusted to the Grāmartī, or village chief, who may have been selected or appointed by the'king. The outward signs of the king’s rank were his palace and his brilliant dress. The King as Landowner.—The position of the king with regard to the land is somewhat obscure. The Greek notices,30 in which, unhappily, it would be dangerous to put much trust, since they were collected by observers who were probably little used to accurate investigations of such matters, and whose statements wore based on inadequate information, vary in their statements. In part they speak of rent being paid, and declare that only the king and no private person could own land, while in part they refer to the taxation of land. Hopkins is strongly of opinion that the payments made were paid for protection —i.e., in modern terminology as a tax, but that the king was recognized as the owner of all the land, while yet the individual or the joint family also owned the land. As against Baden- Powell, who asserted that the idea of the king as a landowner was later, he urges for the Vedic period that the king, as we have seen, is described as devouring the people, and that, according to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Vaiśya can be devoured at will and maltreated (but, unlike the śūdra, not killed); and for the period of the legal Sūtras and śāstras he cites Bṛhaspati and Nārada as clearly recognizing the king’s overlordship, besides a passage of the Mānava Dharma Sāstra which describes the king as ‘lord of all a phrase which Būhler35 was inclined to interpret as a proof of landowning. The evidence is, however, inadequate to prove what is sought. It is not denied that gradually the king came to be vaguely con¬ceived—as the English king still is—as lord of all the land in a proprietorial sense, but it is far more probable that such an idea was only a gradual development than that it was primitive. The power of devouring the people is a political power, not a right of ownership; precisely the same feature can be traced in South Africa,3® where the chief can deprive a man arbitrarily of his land, though the land is really owned by the native. The matter is ultimately to some extent one of terminology, but the parallel cases are in favour of distinguishing between the political rights of the crown, which can be transferred by way of a grant, and the rights of ownership. Hopkins37 thinks that the gifts of land to priests, which seems to be the first sign of land transactions in the Brāhmaṇas, was an actual gift of land; it may have been so in many cases, but it may easily also have been the grant of a superiority : the Epic grants are hardly decisive one way or the other. For the relations of the king with the assembly, see Sabhā ; for his consecration, see Rājasūya. A rāja-tā, lack of a king,’ means‘anarchy.’
(Literally ‘gathering of waters’), ‘ocean,’ is a frequent word in the Rigveda and later. It is of importance in so far as it indicates that the Vedic Indians knew the sea. This is, indeed, denied by Vivien de Saint Martin, but not only do Max Muller and Lassen assert it, but even Zimmer, who is inclined to restrict their knowledge of the sea as far as possible, admits it in one passage of the Rigveda, and of course later. He points out that the ebb and flow of the sea are unknown, that the mouths of the Indus are never mentioned, that fish is not a known diet in the Rigveda (cf. Matsya), and that in many places Samudra is metaphorically used, as of the two oceans, the lower and the upper oceans, etc. In other passages he thinks that Samudra denotes the river Indus when it receives all its Panjab tributaries. It is probable that this is to circumscribe too narrowly the Vedic knowledge of the ocean, which was almost inevitable to people who knew the Indus. There are references to the treasures of the ocean, perhaps pearls or the gains of trade, and the story of Bhujyu seems to allude to marine navigation. That there was any sea trade with Babylon in Vedic times cannot be proved : the stress laid on the occurrence in the Hebrew Book of Kings of qof and iukhiīm, ‘monkey’ (kapi) and ‘ peacock,’ is invalidated by the doubtful date of the Book of Kings. There is, besides, little reason to assume an early date for the trade that no doubt developed later, perhaps about 700 B.C. In the later texts Samudra repeatedly means the sea.
noun (feminine) "Motion" (personified as a daughter of Kardama and wife of Pulaha) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
(in gram.) a term for prepositions and some other adverbial prefixes (such as alam etc.) when immediately connected with the tenses of a verb or with verbal derivatives (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a certain division of the moon's path and the position of the planet in it (the diurnal motion of a planet in its orbit?) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a happy issue (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a kind of rhetorical figure (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a means of success (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a particular high number (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
acting accordingly (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
arriving at (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
condition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
condition of a person undergoing this migration (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
course (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
deportment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
expedient (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
gait (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
going (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
going away (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
happiness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
issue (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
manner (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
manner or power of going (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
march (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
means (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
metempsychosis (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
method of acting (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
mode of existence (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
motion in general (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
movement (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
moving (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
obeisance towards (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
obtaining (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
origin (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
passage (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
path (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
place of issue (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
possibility (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
procedure (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
procession (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
progress (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
proportion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
reason (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
refuge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
resource (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
running wound or sore (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
situation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
state (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
stratagem (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the being understood or meant (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the course of the soul through numerous forms of life (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the position (of a child at birth) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
way (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
way or art (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
volatility of mercury (?) Frequency rank 224/72933
noun (neuter) asylum (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
condition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
course (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
going (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
motion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
refuge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective connected with a preposition or some other adverbial prefix (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
having issues or sores (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
moving (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
possessed of motion (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective halting (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
helpless (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
not going (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
without resource (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) stoppage (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
unsuccessfulness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
want of resort or resource (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) degradation (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
descent (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
downward movement (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) non-accession (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
non-arrival (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
non-attainment (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) arrival (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
coming (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
origin (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
origination (as of the world) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
return (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
rise (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) ascent (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
bringing up (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
coming forth (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
going up (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
rising (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
vomiting (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
adjective following custom or the conduct of others (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
following what precedes (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
imitative (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) distress (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
hell (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
misfortune (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
poverty (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
want of (gen.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) apparent retrograde motion or retrogression (said of the course of a planet) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
crooked or winding course (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (masculine) the god of wind (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the sun (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
the Universal spirit (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
wind (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) association (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
coming together (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
going or resorting to (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
intercourse (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
meeting with (gen. or comp.) (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
society (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
noun (feminine) a good birth
a good or happy condition (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
a secure refuge (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
bliss (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
happiness (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
welfare (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988))
Parse Time: 1.533s Search Word: gati Input Encoding: IAST: gati
Help
Input Methods:
Sanskrit Dictionary understands and transcodes देवनागर्-ई IAST, Harvard-Kyoto, SLP1, ITRANS. You can type in any of the Sanskrit transliteration systems you are familiar with and we will detect and convert it to IAST for the purpose of searching.
Using the Devanagari and IAST Keyboards
Click the icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter
Wildcard Searches and Exact Matching
To replace many characters us * example śakt* will give all words starting with śakt. To replace an individual character use ? for example śakt?m will give all words that have something in place of the ?. By default our search system looks for words “containing” the search keyword. To do an exact match use “” example “śaktimat” will search for this exact phrase.
Special Searches
Type sandhi: and a phrase to search for the sandhi of the two words example.
sandhi:sam yoga will search for saṃyoga
Type root: and a word to do a root search only for the word. You can also use the √ symbol, this is easily typed by typing \/ in SanskritWriter software.
Feedback
icon to enable a popup keybord and you can toggle between देवनागरी and IAST characters. If you want a system software for typing easily in देवनागरी or IAST you can download our software called SanskritWriter